list_resource_quotas

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool lists both used and hard limits, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention permissions, cluster behavior via cluster_alias, or error cases, leaving some transparency gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, compact sentence that leads with the action and resource, then adds the key detail of used vs hard limits. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core purpose adequately. The main gap is not explaining cluster_alias semantics, but the overall context is sufficient for a basic list operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds nothing about the parameters beyond the schema's names. The namespace parameter is inferred from the text, but cluster_alias is completely unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('List all ResourceQuotas') with clear scope ('in a namespace') and details what is included ('used vs hard limits'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_limit_ranges or list_configmaps.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly conveys the context of when to use this tool: listing ResourceQuotas with usage details. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use, but the purpose is unambiguous given the resource type.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.